Florida and Michigan Fiasco

1-Jun-08 at 2:15 PM
7 comments

Okay, admittedly this is the first election that I've ever followed intently and I still have a whole lot to learn but as I understand it two states decided they weren't influential enough in the primaries and decided to budge to near the front of the line and cast their ballots first. The teacher (Democratic party officials... DNC?) smacked their hands with a ruler and punishes them for their naughtiness by taking their votes out of the ballot box and throwing them in an ice cream bucket then tells them to go stand in the corner.

Few things I don't understand about this... what about the Republican Primaries in those two states? Do they remain on the same day they were or were they bumped up too?

Next, moving an election takes ORGANIZATION, AND MONEY, who backed this? Was it Clinton? Presumably she knew that those states would vote in her favor, and even if their votes weren't counted she could pin them up on her flag and use them to keep her momentum strong. The Clinton's have a LOT of pull in the Democratic party, I can't see them having nothing to do with this. (And yes, this is one of my unsubstantiated opinions that I can't prove.)

All I know is that all the controversy isn't about including the Voters of Florida and Michigan in the democratic process, it's about Hillary Clinton getting the nomination by hook or by crook.

7 comments

Tags:

Comments

TK -- the GOP primaries were also held on the same day -- against RNC rules as well. As a result, the GOP decided to punish FL and MI by permitting half the delegates to be seated at the convention as they would normally.

When the DNC punished the two states, all Dem candidates agreed not to campaign there and Obama wasn't even ON the Michigan ballot. Yet, HRC will put those "votes" as just as valid as every other one. Terrible.

Toe-Knee replied to Steve Betz’s comment:
Jun 1, 2008
Reply

Wow. So all this hulabaloo really is the Clinton camp just crying injustice because that's the only thing they've got left. Interesting how the Republicans aren't screaming their heads off. Thanks for that clarification.

It's a pretty messy business- the rules are there for a reason, and if there wasn't a date that said "earlier than this and it's not official" people could hold primaries whenever they wanted. Republicans in the State Senate in Florida and Michigan moved the primaries forward HOPING to screw with the Democrats, and they got exactly what they wanted.

All of the Democratic Nominees agreed not to campaign in either state, and Hillary went against that agreement, and is now making a scene not because she cares about justice but because she wanted the votes all to herself. There were a lot of people who didn't vote in those primaries, or voted for "undeclared" because they knew their votes wouldn't eventually count, and trust me when I say that those voters feel just as disenfranchised as the Hillary supporters. The problem isn't with the DNC, it's with the fact that the Republicans managed to screw over all of the voters in those states. But they don't care, because there was solidarity on their parts and they have a presumptive nominee anyway.

As a side note. Since for the dems they knew at the time that the votes were not supposed to count many moderate dems voted for McCain in both states. They decided if their votes were not going to count they would vote for the rep they thought would be weaker. There was no huge out cry by the reps about this only the media telling us that we had to accept the moderate candidate McCain. Romney(the conservative) did win MI and then took second in FL and McCain took second in MI and won FL.

The rules are set up by each party and not regulated by the government and who pays for each primary differs by state. Additionally the reps are mostly winner take all states where as the dems do percentages and this is a 'new' thing for them. If I recall correctly new as in after Carter new. So they actually created this issue for themselves. If they did the count by the 'old' rules or as the reps do I believe HRC would be ahead due to her taking the big states like CA. The other thing to consider are which states went to each. HRC took more 'blue' states, the states that usually go dem every election, verses Obama taking more 'red' states that are fairly unlikely to go to him during the election.

So there are a few more things to let you know about as far as the primary season goes. As someone who was a Thompson supporter I wish the reps primaries had gone longer so we could have had a better chance for a candidate that represents the conservatives of the party. The long primary for the dems I think has been good to help us learn more about a candidate that no one really knew about a year ago.

[this is good]

I live in Michigan, and voted for Ron Paul as I had no option of voting for Obama as I wanted. The state, and Fla's moving forward of the primaries was in direct violation of DNC 'rules' but specifically to break the strangle hold that the first five states had on determining the way the primary goes. I'm actually for that, because it has broken the traditional "Iowa and New Hampshire" dictating the way the country goes. However, Clinton needs to stop speaking out for me. I'm a disenfranchised voter, and I would much rather that my vote doesn't count, than they try and seat the delegates when I didn't get an option to vote for the candidate I wanted.
The whole thing is a big pissing contest anyway.
GRRR!
POLITICS!

I agree with you that the GOP primary tied up too quickly. It really did seem rushed. While this drawn-out campaign for the Democrats is tedious it really has showcased a lot of the differences between the candidates and for the voters I think that's a good thing. And in GOP terms I do think the first 5 primaries have too much weight overall. The all-or-nothing tendency of GOP primaries I saw lends me to think that this means all someone has to do is campaign heavily in those states and a few on Super Tuesday and he's got it all locked up. And now you have McCain, who would be my last choice, but it seems as if the party chose him, not the voters.

Patricia Volonakis Davis replied to Toe-Knee’s comment:
Jun 4, 2008
Reply

I agree with all of your statement, Toe- Knee. There was a manipulation not only by the parties here,but bythe press. Whether I support Hillary Clinton or not is beside the point. The media and the parties seemed to have made up their minds long before we as voters could, who they wanted as nominees, And I for one have to hand it to Hillary for sticking it out, just for that reason, if .or no other.

Florida and Michigan Fiasco

Comments

Post a comment

About Me

Places My Presence Has Tainted!

My Groups

Neighborhood